Jiri Pirko wrote: > Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 08:53:13AM CET, kaber@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >> > >> > Me neither, but I don't think this approach can be done without the >> > hook. While I still find it questionable whether this mode really >> > needs to be supported for a bridge at all > > Well there is I think nothing unusual in this net scheme. And by for example > the increasing setups with kvm/bridging it will be needed more and more. Mangling ARP packets for load-balancing purposes seems quite unusual. >> , an alternative approach >> would be to have bonding add FDB entries for all secondary MACs to >> make bridging treat them as local. > > Yes - that is the clear way. But there's not really straihtforward way to do > this. The clear approach would be to extend struct net_device for list of these > mac addresses and let the drivers (binding) fill it and bridge to process it. > But I don't know. We have a list of secondary unicast addresses, but that might not be suitable in this case since the addresses are (mostly) intended not to be visible to the stack if I understood correctly. _______________________________________________ Bridge mailing list Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
